Linked by Thom Holwerda on Wed 21st Mar 2007 16:44 UTC, submitted by diegocg
LWN writes about a InformationWeek interview to Linus Torvalds: "Finally, the real basic issue is that I think the Free Software Foundation simply doesn't have goals that I can personally sign up to. For example, the FSF considers proprietary software to be something evil and immoral. Me, I just don't care about proprietary software. It's not 'evil' or 'immoral', it just doesn't matter. I think that Open Source can do better, and I'm willing to put my money where my mouth is by working on Open Source, but it's not a crusade - it's just a superior way of working together and generating code."
Thread beginning with comment 223997
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
Member since:
2006-09-18
I like how freedom 3 is basically saying that it's evil or immoral if I don't help 'my neighbor' steal something that isn't expensive.
For that matter, my 'Hello World' programs are not expensive. A full Video editing suit using the latest hardware and techniques is expensive to make. So I can understand a desire to recover your costs on making it. Even if distributing it may be somewhat cheap. Everyone seems to forget that part.....
How do we do that? If I sell it and give away the source (to satisfy freedom x,y) I have higher % of pirates and I loose $ and it raises the cost to the community because of more law enforcement. Or I can sell the binary, and hope that is enough to discourage casual warez. Where's the evil?